S.K. PROPERTIES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2007-08

248 are as under: Section 45(1) deals with profits or gains arising from the transfer “136 of a capital

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

gains has to be computed u/s 48. Page 9 of 19 The Sentiments emerging from the aforesaid observations of High Court is applicable to the assessee to conclude that even a nil consideration on capital reduction cannot defeat the computation mechanism u/s 48. We also draw your attention to the following judgments: CIT v G. Narasimhan & other

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

capital gain and thefore the machinery provisions fail and therefore the charge itself fails. 23. Consequently, the relevant grounds of appeal 2 to 3 of the assessee are dismissed. 24. Ground Nos.4 and 5 can be decided together as they arise under identical facts and circumstances. We have already seen that assessee received a sum of Rs.2

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. NARAYAN MANDYAM VEERABUDHI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

section 2(14) & 2(47) have reference only to the assessment of capital gains. 3. K.R. Srinath Vs. ACIT (2004) (141 Taxman 268)(MAD) 4. CIT Vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1980) (186 ITR 693), observed as under :- ……….A settlement was arrived at when the suit reached hearing at which point of time the assessee gave up his right to claim

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capital asset into, or its treatment by him as stock-in-trade of a business carried on by him shall be chargeable to income-tax as his income of the previous year in which such stock-in-trade is sold or otherwise transferred

SHRI.SURESH NAGARAJA RAO KESTUR ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

section 54F in respect of capital gains earned on the sale of original asset. 3.3 Assessee submitted that there was no irregularity of transactions of purchase and sale by assessee and that this was the only solitary transaction entered into by assessee. Further, it was submitted that the co-owners were relatives of assessee, all of them were salaried people

SAI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Undertakings) Act 1970 to the notice of Ld CIT(A), but the Ld CIT(A) has rejected the same by observing that it is a deeming provision and further Canara Bank is regulated under Banking Regulations Act. However, we find merit in the contention of the assessee and hence we are unable

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even the show cause notice was issued was not answered. 4. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.69,75,248

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even the show cause notice was issued was not answered. 4. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.69,75,248

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even the show cause notice was issued was not answered. 4. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.69,75,248

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even the show cause notice was issued was not answered. 4. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.69,75,248

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN, WARD-1(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI HOSAGRAHAR VISVESVARAYA JAGADISH,, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14

capital gains of Rs.6,76,02,248/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24/3/2016. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the ld AR of the assessee argued the grounds and reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities. The Sole dispute is with

M/S. SWETHA HEALTH RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

gain and the provisions of Sec 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dealing depreciable assets has been wrongly applied in the instant case.” 4. Ld.AR submitted that the alleged capital asset transferred during the year under consideration is land measuring 893.04 Sq. mt. (9,600 Sq. ft.). It was submitted that on that land, there existed two sheds measuring

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital gains of Rs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had been claimed u/s 54F of the IT Act.... 4.3 Thus he submitted that it is grossly incorrect to initiate 263 proceedings on the ground of no enquiry or inadequate inquiry. Consequently, the order of the AO dt.28.12.2019 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital gains of Rs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had been claimed u/s 54F of the IT Act.... 4.3 Thus he submitted that it is grossly incorrect to initiate 263 proceedings on the ground of no enquiry or inadequate inquiry. Consequently, the order of the AO dt.28.12.2019 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TAYANA CONSULT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain u/s.45(2) of the Act. It was pointed out by him that in the reasons recorded the AO has not referred to any material which had come into his possession subsequent to the passing of the order u/s.143(3) of the Act based on which he entertained belief that Development Agreement resulted in a Transfer and thereby provisions

PRATHAP KUMAR N ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assesssee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2012 – 13 Shri Prathap Kumar N, No. 32/2, 5Th Main Road, Vs. Acit, Circle – 5 (2) (1), Chamrajpet, Bangalore Bangalore – 560018. Pan: Adzpk5497K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Prasanth G. S., C. A. Revenue By : Shri M. K. Biju, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2020 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Am:

Capital gains Account Scheme i.e. within the due date of filing the Return of Income and claimed deduction of Rs. 248,72,991/- u/s 54F. Later on, the assessee used this money to buy a property in koramangla. The objection of the AO is this that the assessee owns a self-occupied house property and these nine unsold flats